Global warming. Save the Planet!
Discussion
Save the planet!
There’s been a lot of green-bashing discussion that I’ve diplomatically not really entered, hypocrite that I am. So here’s some stuff about global warming and the environment:
The planet is getting warmer. Mean temperatures now are significantly warmer than they were say 50-100 years ago. Although, temperatures in victorian times were unusually low; the 19th century is often known as the “mini ice age”.
Now this is nothing new; the planet’s temperature has swung up and down a lot over the past several thousand, and indeed several thousand million, years. There is no conclusive evidence, as far as I am aware, about the cause.
One potential cause is “greenhouse gases”, the most significant of which (in terms of overall effect) is Carbon Dioxide. Others, for eg, are methane (more significant by weight but there’s a lot less of it) and water vapour. Carbon Dioxide levels have risen and fallen, in accordance with but slightly in advance of, global temperatures since the last ice age. There could well be a ‘chicken and egg’ effect here, but on the existing evidence it appears highly likely that rising CO2 levels have caused, or significantly contributed to, rising temperatures in the past.
CO2 levels have risen considerably recently – since the industrial revolution in victorian times – to levels considerably higher than they were before the mini ice age.
There are undoubtedly natural factors affecting CO2 levels, as the levels have changed a lot in pre-history. But in the current rise, levels have risen faster than at any time before – changes which took thousands or millions of years before have taken just a couple of hundred.
So it appears highly likely that ‘artificial’ activity has contributed substantially to the current rise in CO2. ‘Artificial’ in quotes because man is a natural phenomenon (some politicians excepted!), just as much as dolphins, mushrooms and bacteria. Just with a larger impact on what goes on.
Some sources of CO2 are generating electricity, heating factories – and of course burning dinosaur corpses in internal combustion engines.
So what’s going to happen if we keep doing it, as G W Bush seems to think we should?
“Save the Planet” – sorry, but bullshit. Global warming is not going to cause the Earth to detonate into asteroids, or go spiralling off into outer space. Nor is it going to wipe out all traces of life. It may well make it increasingly difficult for humans to live on some parts of the Earth. It may make it difficult for many species of animals to live at all on the Earth.
Well asteroids have done that in the past – witness the dinosaurs (and lots of other smaller and so ignored life forms), and three or so other mass extinctions in the past from other causes. On that subject – apparently the current rate of extinction of species is as high as some of those other past mass extinctions.
Save the human race then? Humans are pretty inventive, you may have realised. We are also very adaptable – humans live in the Artic and in the Namibian desert. So we’re not going to be wiped out in a hurry either.
But life may be a lot less fun if we’re confined to the polar regions, and we can’t go outside without head to toe clothing because of the UV burning through holes in the ozone layer frying our uncovered skin (that’s a seperate issue). And hardly any wild animals exist anymore - I might never have seen a wild tiger, or a blue whale, but even though their extinction would hardly make much difference to my life, I like the fact that they exist.
Is this what we want? And are we prepared to accept this as a consequence of continuing unfettered dinosaur-burning? No I don’t think so either.
It takes a little responsibility. Environmental activists haranguing people about driving a car rather than share public transport with hordes of the unwashed (I can say that, I’m not a politician) don’t really help, they just get people’s backs up. I’m not convinced that buses are the answer anyway – if they can’t afford to run modern clean buses, there’s no benefit over cars anyway. And if you’ve got kids and luggage – well thanks, but a car’ll go door to door with a lot less fuss than three changes of bus and train, with a (badly maintained, dirty, polluting) taxi at each end. But if we want to avoid the pretty-uncomfortable scenario above, then - however much fun it is to wind up hippies - we need to think a little.
>>> Edited by JohnL on Tuesday 11th June 14:41
There’s been a lot of green-bashing discussion that I’ve diplomatically not really entered, hypocrite that I am. So here’s some stuff about global warming and the environment:
The planet is getting warmer. Mean temperatures now are significantly warmer than they were say 50-100 years ago. Although, temperatures in victorian times were unusually low; the 19th century is often known as the “mini ice age”.
Now this is nothing new; the planet’s temperature has swung up and down a lot over the past several thousand, and indeed several thousand million, years. There is no conclusive evidence, as far as I am aware, about the cause.
One potential cause is “greenhouse gases”, the most significant of which (in terms of overall effect) is Carbon Dioxide. Others, for eg, are methane (more significant by weight but there’s a lot less of it) and water vapour. Carbon Dioxide levels have risen and fallen, in accordance with but slightly in advance of, global temperatures since the last ice age. There could well be a ‘chicken and egg’ effect here, but on the existing evidence it appears highly likely that rising CO2 levels have caused, or significantly contributed to, rising temperatures in the past.
CO2 levels have risen considerably recently – since the industrial revolution in victorian times – to levels considerably higher than they were before the mini ice age.
There are undoubtedly natural factors affecting CO2 levels, as the levels have changed a lot in pre-history. But in the current rise, levels have risen faster than at any time before – changes which took thousands or millions of years before have taken just a couple of hundred.
So it appears highly likely that ‘artificial’ activity has contributed substantially to the current rise in CO2. ‘Artificial’ in quotes because man is a natural phenomenon (some politicians excepted!), just as much as dolphins, mushrooms and bacteria. Just with a larger impact on what goes on.
Some sources of CO2 are generating electricity, heating factories – and of course burning dinosaur corpses in internal combustion engines.
So what’s going to happen if we keep doing it, as G W Bush seems to think we should?
“Save the Planet” – sorry, but bullshit. Global warming is not going to cause the Earth to detonate into asteroids, or go spiralling off into outer space. Nor is it going to wipe out all traces of life. It may well make it increasingly difficult for humans to live on some parts of the Earth. It may make it difficult for many species of animals to live at all on the Earth.
Well asteroids have done that in the past – witness the dinosaurs (and lots of other smaller and so ignored life forms), and three or so other mass extinctions in the past from other causes. On that subject – apparently the current rate of extinction of species is as high as some of those other past mass extinctions.
Save the human race then? Humans are pretty inventive, you may have realised. We are also very adaptable – humans live in the Artic and in the Namibian desert. So we’re not going to be wiped out in a hurry either.
But life may be a lot less fun if we’re confined to the polar regions, and we can’t go outside without head to toe clothing because of the UV burning through holes in the ozone layer frying our uncovered skin (that’s a seperate issue). And hardly any wild animals exist anymore - I might never have seen a wild tiger, or a blue whale, but even though their extinction would hardly make much difference to my life, I like the fact that they exist.
Is this what we want? And are we prepared to accept this as a consequence of continuing unfettered dinosaur-burning? No I don’t think so either.
It takes a little responsibility. Environmental activists haranguing people about driving a car rather than share public transport with hordes of the unwashed (I can say that, I’m not a politician) don’t really help, they just get people’s backs up. I’m not convinced that buses are the answer anyway – if they can’t afford to run modern clean buses, there’s no benefit over cars anyway. And if you’ve got kids and luggage – well thanks, but a car’ll go door to door with a lot less fuss than three changes of bus and train, with a (badly maintained, dirty, polluting) taxi at each end. But if we want to avoid the pretty-uncomfortable scenario above, then - however much fun it is to wind up hippies - we need to think a little.
>>> Edited by JohnL on Tuesday 11th June 14:41
Aye,
Good thoughts John. I always felt that once the fuel issue was sorted then there wouldn't be much grounds for car/private transport restriction. Biomass fuels are proper renewable sources and have octanes of around 110! Racing fuel anyone?
What grounds would the disagreement between greens/petrolheads continue if the fuel used was 'green'? Your not allowed to have a phatter car than me, or your not allowed to go faster than me it's anti-social? Not really green issues anymore, more social jealousy...
Unfortunately we are a breeding ground for scrotes who are brought up on a diet of avarice for luxury consumeables most will never own, but may get to vandalise from time to time.
funkihamsta
Good thoughts John. I always felt that once the fuel issue was sorted then there wouldn't be much grounds for car/private transport restriction. Biomass fuels are proper renewable sources and have octanes of around 110! Racing fuel anyone?
What grounds would the disagreement between greens/petrolheads continue if the fuel used was 'green'? Your not allowed to have a phatter car than me, or your not allowed to go faster than me it's anti-social? Not really green issues anymore, more social jealousy...
Unfortunately we are a breeding ground for scrotes who are brought up on a diet of avarice for luxury consumeables most will never own, but may get to vandalise from time to time.
funkihamsta
Well, chaps. I like to think I'm an "enlightened environmentalist" and what I mean by this is: we need to deal with the big problems first. The vast majority of CO2 production is heavy industry, domestic heating - oh and yes transport plays a part.
I particulary loathe the "Cars Are Bad" idiots who use the green argument against them - when cars are clearly only a small part of the problem. Their anti-car nonsense actually DAMAGES the (not so silly) message that we should generally try to look after our planet a bit.
I think the point that much of the Anti-Car propaganda comes from a social-jealousy issue is probably right - I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Ah well:I think I might go lag the loft and turn the central heating down a bit before going out for a blast in my 4.5litre V8 for no reason other than to enjoy it..
I particulary loathe the "Cars Are Bad" idiots who use the green argument against them - when cars are clearly only a small part of the problem. Their anti-car nonsense actually DAMAGES the (not so silly) message that we should generally try to look after our planet a bit.
I think the point that much of the Anti-Car propaganda comes from a social-jealousy issue is probably right - I hadn't thought of it that way before.
Ah well:I think I might go lag the loft and turn the central heating down a bit before going out for a blast in my 4.5litre V8 for no reason other than to enjoy it..
Agreed - both camps can be very defensive. This then causes people to become dismissive of the opposite arguement because of distrust of agenda rather than based on the argument's merits. I think motorists are more defensive BUT understandably so - I used to think that the anti-car movement was asking for a reasonable compromise but it seems to have become very dogmatic and has been hijacked by those with motivations that are far from green.
funkihamsta
>> Edited by funkihamsta on Tuesday 11th June 14:51
funkihamsta
>> Edited by funkihamsta on Tuesday 11th June 14:51
The thing is no one wants to downgrade their car/posessions/lifestyle once they have built it up to a certain level. That is what we are all working for non?
So 100 years ago, a car for Joe Schmoe would be unthinkable, a luxury for the mega rich. 50 years ago a small car, maybe, but still not an everyday item. In 2002, 2 cars? That's not unreasonable, I can afford it, I deserve it right?
The energy usage per person goes up and up, the population goes up and up, and in terms of fuel there is a finite amount available. If you think very long term, it just isn't sustainable, especially if we are trying to help poorer countries to, ultimately, have the same living standards as us.
The Industrial Revolution only happened 300 years ago, I'm pretty sure that before that the influence of humans on nature was pretty minimal over all. If they did make an impact it would be localised, and problems could be sorted locally.
I am sure Humans could survive if the climate changed, but given the delicate balance of nature etc. letting thousands of other species die is not clever. As well as being arrogant.
I think the problem is that the effects of polution and the energy consumption of manufacture are so remote from most people. Individually one person does not make much difference, so they are not too concerned about the effect they have. Times that by 100 million people thinking the same way and you have a problem. I think that is the problem with the Motorist/Anti Car disagreement, one group is more concerned with individual liberty, the other is trying to impose restrictions on everyone, regardless of their circumstances.
So 100 years ago, a car for Joe Schmoe would be unthinkable, a luxury for the mega rich. 50 years ago a small car, maybe, but still not an everyday item. In 2002, 2 cars? That's not unreasonable, I can afford it, I deserve it right?
The energy usage per person goes up and up, the population goes up and up, and in terms of fuel there is a finite amount available. If you think very long term, it just isn't sustainable, especially if we are trying to help poorer countries to, ultimately, have the same living standards as us.
The Industrial Revolution only happened 300 years ago, I'm pretty sure that before that the influence of humans on nature was pretty minimal over all. If they did make an impact it would be localised, and problems could be sorted locally.
I am sure Humans could survive if the climate changed, but given the delicate balance of nature etc. letting thousands of other species die is not clever. As well as being arrogant.
I think the problem is that the effects of polution and the energy consumption of manufacture are so remote from most people. Individually one person does not make much difference, so they are not too concerned about the effect they have. Times that by 100 million people thinking the same way and you have a problem. I think that is the problem with the Motorist/Anti Car disagreement, one group is more concerned with individual liberty, the other is trying to impose restrictions on everyone, regardless of their circumstances.
quote:
The energy usage per person goes up and up, the population goes up and up, and in terms of fuel there is a finite amount available. If you think very long term, it just isn't sustainable, especially if we are trying to help poorer countries to, ultimately, have the same living standards as us.
Energy usage is highly sustainable. We only use a tiny fraction of the energy available to us.
Energy from fossil fuels is another thing, but there should be enough to tide us over until we have the technology to use solar/wind/wave energy to generate hydrogen, and then we can burn all the fuel we want.
Just got to keep spending money on research. Like the oil companies...
Imagine the royalties on a patent for efficient solar splitting of water....
quote:
Imagine the royalties on a patent for efficient solar splitting of water....
And you could run a whacking great V8 on the Hydrogen. Absolutely environmentally friendly - and could go like stink. BMW already make Hydrogen cars that work - so they're not far away from being able to build a car that (given the Hydrogen infrastructure) could actually be used by the public.
If our Government had the vision to spend some of the enormous amount of tax they take off the roads on developing the infrastructure we could have cars (including extremely high performance cars) that were extremely emissions friendly.
Now all you have to do is generate the electricity that cracks the water to make the Hydrogen in a clean, renewable manner and generations to come can be "Petrolheads". Only not petrol anymore.
However it wouldn't be very PC to say that a CAR could be that eco-friendly. Oh no. Its better to say why doesn't everyone travel on oil-burning death dealing crappy old buses. Idiots.
Good on you JohnL for kicking off an intelligent debate.
Firstly a useless statistic ... as has been mentioned, methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Major sources are the symbiotic bacteria with which animals digest cellulose in grasses, wood etc. Step forward two major sinners ... the cow and the termite. There is roughly one tonne of termites per human on the planet, which adds up to a meaningfull amount of gas. Also good old McDonalds and their friends are helping to incresae the number of cows marching across the planet, and often on recently flattened bits of rain forest.
None the less, stamping on ants and foregoing burgers is tinkering around on the edges of the problem. Zero emmission energy is the way to go, and there is one choice that is often overlooked.
The usual suspects ... Hydro, wave, wind and solar are great in theory, but can not yet make a real dent in our reliance on fossil fuels. At the moment hydro is the most effective technology of the four, but you have to have the right landscape, weather and population density for it to be viable.
Solar may well eventually be the perfect solution, but to date, the energy required to build a solar cell is prohibitively high, and no one has got a solar furnace to work efficiently enough to be viable.
So what do we have that works?
Nuclear power.
Clearly it has two major snags: accidental radioactive discharge and the ultra-longterm storage of spent fuel. But these are technological probelems. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to tackle them?
Every other form of sustainable power, bar solar, has serious and unavoidable side impacts (tidal power buggers up your coastline and its eco system, wind power covers you landscape in whistling turbines, hydro floods your landscape).
If 500m of solid ground absorbs every bit of cosmic radiation bar neutrinos on the way down, then shoving nuclear waste in a 500m deep hole will protect all of us on the surface from any radiation coming back up. Yes it needs to be properly sealed so it takes an eon for any buried material to find its way back to the surface.
Can we build a power station that never leaks? Well, most have worked OK. Chernobyl was a **** up from day one. They took a design for a nuclear submarine (where you intentionally compromise safety for compactness and performance) scaled the thing up, shoved it in an inadequate concrete box, and then intentionally over ran the safety features in order to see what would happen. You truly couldn't make this stuff up.
If you take what we have already learned about fission power and apply some effort, and money, I don't believe the problems with nuclear power are insurmountable. We have 50 years worth of experience which suggests the technology is OK.
The reason it is getting phased out in many countries is because it is more expensive than burning fossil fuels. If it was cheaper than gas, oil and coal, you can bet your bottom dollar our government would be vastly more supportive of the nuclear industry. It happens to be politically expedient in the short term to let the industry wither on the vine as (a) it panders to the public's paranoia and (b) it saves money. These are pretty silly reasons not to at least examine its merits.
Firstly a useless statistic ... as has been mentioned, methane is a potent greenhouse gas. Major sources are the symbiotic bacteria with which animals digest cellulose in grasses, wood etc. Step forward two major sinners ... the cow and the termite. There is roughly one tonne of termites per human on the planet, which adds up to a meaningfull amount of gas. Also good old McDonalds and their friends are helping to incresae the number of cows marching across the planet, and often on recently flattened bits of rain forest.
None the less, stamping on ants and foregoing burgers is tinkering around on the edges of the problem. Zero emmission energy is the way to go, and there is one choice that is often overlooked.
The usual suspects ... Hydro, wave, wind and solar are great in theory, but can not yet make a real dent in our reliance on fossil fuels. At the moment hydro is the most effective technology of the four, but you have to have the right landscape, weather and population density for it to be viable.
Solar may well eventually be the perfect solution, but to date, the energy required to build a solar cell is prohibitively high, and no one has got a solar furnace to work efficiently enough to be viable.
So what do we have that works?
Nuclear power.
Clearly it has two major snags: accidental radioactive discharge and the ultra-longterm storage of spent fuel. But these are technological probelems. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to tackle them?
Every other form of sustainable power, bar solar, has serious and unavoidable side impacts (tidal power buggers up your coastline and its eco system, wind power covers you landscape in whistling turbines, hydro floods your landscape).
If 500m of solid ground absorbs every bit of cosmic radiation bar neutrinos on the way down, then shoving nuclear waste in a 500m deep hole will protect all of us on the surface from any radiation coming back up. Yes it needs to be properly sealed so it takes an eon for any buried material to find its way back to the surface.
Can we build a power station that never leaks? Well, most have worked OK. Chernobyl was a **** up from day one. They took a design for a nuclear submarine (where you intentionally compromise safety for compactness and performance) scaled the thing up, shoved it in an inadequate concrete box, and then intentionally over ran the safety features in order to see what would happen. You truly couldn't make this stuff up.
If you take what we have already learned about fission power and apply some effort, and money, I don't believe the problems with nuclear power are insurmountable. We have 50 years worth of experience which suggests the technology is OK.
The reason it is getting phased out in many countries is because it is more expensive than burning fossil fuels. If it was cheaper than gas, oil and coal, you can bet your bottom dollar our government would be vastly more supportive of the nuclear industry. It happens to be politically expedient in the short term to let the industry wither on the vine as (a) it panders to the public's paranoia and (b) it saves money. These are pretty silly reasons not to at least examine its merits.
Have to say, I'm not in the least convinced by nuclear power.
(Oh before I go any further: thanks for reading that ramble!
)
Anyway, nuke power. It's not as though chernobyl was unique, there have been a fair few accidents at nuke power stations that were a bit less severe, but still caused some contamination or came very close to doing so. While the risks can be managed in theory, the potential downside of failing to manage them properly is somewhat extreme - and we're dealing with humans here, guided by politicians: if it can be screwed up, then somewhere down the line it will be.
The long term contamination - could be dealt with I suppose, but in whose backyard? Somewhere where they don't vote I think
.
There are alternatives. Hydro power is fairly good although it does impact the local ecology. Wind farms - OK not very attractive, but a hell of a lot prettier than Torness nuclear power station (about 15 miles round the coast from here). And offshore wind farms - developing nicely, and very viable.
And this is the part I like: one consequence of global warming is higher wind speeds ... so wind farms take avantage of that and reduce the potential for further warming. Similar applies to solar power.
Wave power is becoming more viable too, and the newer versions have a lower impact on the coastline although - like most power stations - they'll never be exactly pretty. There's a promising pilot on the island of Islay recently started.
I really like the idea of bio fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel. Hydrogen too - although for that the energy to make it has to come from somewhere, so until alternative energy sources can be properly used for it (as said above) it's little more than a clever battery.
In fact I'll contact Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to ask why they don't campaign to reduce the tax on bio fuels to encourage their development. And I'll have a go at any government department that might be appropriate. I'll post up any response I get.
Anyone know anything about fuel cells? I've heard of them but know very little.
Another ramble
>> Edited by JohnL on Tuesday 11th June 22:32
(Oh before I go any further: thanks for reading that ramble!
) Anyway, nuke power. It's not as though chernobyl was unique, there have been a fair few accidents at nuke power stations that were a bit less severe, but still caused some contamination or came very close to doing so. While the risks can be managed in theory, the potential downside of failing to manage them properly is somewhat extreme - and we're dealing with humans here, guided by politicians: if it can be screwed up, then somewhere down the line it will be.
The long term contamination - could be dealt with I suppose, but in whose backyard? Somewhere where they don't vote I think
. There are alternatives. Hydro power is fairly good although it does impact the local ecology. Wind farms - OK not very attractive, but a hell of a lot prettier than Torness nuclear power station (about 15 miles round the coast from here). And offshore wind farms - developing nicely, and very viable.
And this is the part I like: one consequence of global warming is higher wind speeds ... so wind farms take avantage of that and reduce the potential for further warming. Similar applies to solar power.
Wave power is becoming more viable too, and the newer versions have a lower impact on the coastline although - like most power stations - they'll never be exactly pretty. There's a promising pilot on the island of Islay recently started.
I really like the idea of bio fuels like ethanol and bio-diesel. Hydrogen too - although for that the energy to make it has to come from somewhere, so until alternative energy sources can be properly used for it (as said above) it's little more than a clever battery.
In fact I'll contact Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to ask why they don't campaign to reduce the tax on bio fuels to encourage their development. And I'll have a go at any government department that might be appropriate. I'll post up any response I get.
Anyone know anything about fuel cells? I've heard of them but know very little.
Another ramble
>> Edited by JohnL on Tuesday 11th June 22:32
Here's another aspect to add fuel ( clean burning of course!) to the debatory fire, global warming /CO2 statistics are based on measurements made in the last 50 years or so. However solar flare / sunspot activity has been logged for over 300 years as it's relativly easy to spot.
Now call me some kind of activist but the ruddy great nuclear fireball over our heads spitting out columns of flame thousands of miles long might have a teensy effect on how warm we get.
And if we take a look at the 300 years results a cyclic trend can be seen where about 100 years ago when the Thames used to freeze solid there was a period of unusually low solar fare activity and these days the cycle is again back at it's peak. In another hundred years it's very likely the Thames will be freezing over again and the man-made CO2 production of 2% of the world total will probably be less due to the fashionable hysteria of today. Or we'll hit by another meteorite by then as we're overdue for another impact..
Sleep tight
Matt
Now call me some kind of activist but the ruddy great nuclear fireball over our heads spitting out columns of flame thousands of miles long might have a teensy effect on how warm we get.
And if we take a look at the 300 years results a cyclic trend can be seen where about 100 years ago when the Thames used to freeze solid there was a period of unusually low solar fare activity and these days the cycle is again back at it's peak. In another hundred years it's very likely the Thames will be freezing over again and the man-made CO2 production of 2% of the world total will probably be less due to the fashionable hysteria of today. Or we'll hit by another meteorite by then as we're overdue for another impact..
Sleep tight
Matt
I agree that wave and wind look preferable to nuke, but when you see the inconsequential amount of power they can generate, I think you are forced to look for alternatives. I agree that hydro is a great source of power, but it is only viable where you have a lot of water, and a big drop. Fine for sparcely populated areas with the right weather and terrain, e.g. Scotland, but pretty useless in England.
The relative risks associated with nuke power need to be considered carefully. Does it actually pose a bigger threat to health than emmissions from fossil fuel burners? Carcenogenic particulates and organic compounds versus the risk of inhaling some uranium?
I suspect that bar an outright meltdown, it is much safer. I.e. the risk distribution would look quite different. Fossils give a low lvel of risk all the time, whereas nukes give almost no risk most of the time and the occaisional disaster. Over a long period of time which is better?
Obviously there is a fierce debate about the health impact in areas around sites like Sellafield, but surely the only thing you can reasonably conclude is that if there are additional health risks caused by its proximity, then these risks must be very small, because after major effort nobody has suceeded in measuring the risk in a reproducible way. If there was a clear and substantial risk the morticians would be busy and they aren't.
People seem to be much happier to take a risk if they think they are in control of it. For instance, crossing the road is blatantly more dangerous minute for minute, than standing in a field near Sellafield. Nonetheless when I have stood looking at Sellafield, I suffer a ball-tingling dread, whereas i run through traffic without a second thought. This is obviously totally irrational, but it is how i react emotionally. One thing you can prove in a lab is how bad people's inate estimation of risk is. If we were any good at it, Las Vegas would go bust in 5 minutes.
The relative risks associated with nuke power need to be considered carefully. Does it actually pose a bigger threat to health than emmissions from fossil fuel burners? Carcenogenic particulates and organic compounds versus the risk of inhaling some uranium?
I suspect that bar an outright meltdown, it is much safer. I.e. the risk distribution would look quite different. Fossils give a low lvel of risk all the time, whereas nukes give almost no risk most of the time and the occaisional disaster. Over a long period of time which is better?
Obviously there is a fierce debate about the health impact in areas around sites like Sellafield, but surely the only thing you can reasonably conclude is that if there are additional health risks caused by its proximity, then these risks must be very small, because after major effort nobody has suceeded in measuring the risk in a reproducible way. If there was a clear and substantial risk the morticians would be busy and they aren't.
People seem to be much happier to take a risk if they think they are in control of it. For instance, crossing the road is blatantly more dangerous minute for minute, than standing in a field near Sellafield. Nonetheless when I have stood looking at Sellafield, I suffer a ball-tingling dread, whereas i run through traffic without a second thought. This is obviously totally irrational, but it is how i react emotionally. One thing you can prove in a lab is how bad people's inate estimation of risk is. If we were any good at it, Las Vegas would go bust in 5 minutes.
quote:
I particulary loathe the "Cars Are Bad" idiots who use the green argument against them - when cars are clearly only a small part of the problem. Their anti-car nonsense actually DAMAGES the (not so silly) message that we should generally try to look after our planet a bit.
No body ever seems to say anything about aircraft pollution. Living under the flight path at Heathrow and seeing the great iron birds struggling to reach altitude at god knows how many tons of fuel per minute must have a vast impact on pollutants into the atmosphere.
However that is obviously acceptable
quote:
I think the point that much of the Anti-Car propaganda comes from a social-jealousy issue is probably right - I hadn't thought of it that way before.
A bit like the arguement against fox hunting really.
Most people probably dont even think about foxes being killed until they are prompted into the debate by seeing some upper class twit of the year in a red jacket , jodphers and a riding crop ( I dont usually pigeon hole people and nor am I anti- hunting, I just dont take part in it.)
I dont think its the fact they are killing foxes that sticks in peoples throats ( although the method is not particularly efficient) Its the fact that many that ride and follow on horses are from the upper gene pools and therefore subject of the same kind of social jealousy.
More foxes are killed on the roads than are ever killed by hounds.
Just be mindfull that when the anti hunting lobby have succeeded then they may well start on the motorist as the next evil creation that is destroying the countrys' wildlife.
quote:
Ah well:I think I might go lag the loft and turn the central heating down a bit before going out for a blast in my 4.5litre V8 for no reason other than to enjoy it..
Just be careful of the wildlife while you are doing it.
Nuclear power is utterly stupid. And what do we do with energy released? We heat up water to drive steam turbines...nice to see mankind has advanced so far beyond the combustion engine and steam technology!
If you know anyone in Cumbria (Millom area) they may tell you that Sellafield has leaks on a weekly basis, the place is mis-managed and populated by 16 year old scrotes paid to get their life times radiation dose in 6 months. Its a mess. Burying waster just irradiates the surrounding rock so that becomes radioactive as well. (Its like wrapping a turd in paper and expecting the paper to be fine). If there is any through flow of water this nuclear waste can rapidly find its way into the water table...then you'd have a reason to move abroad!!
Fusion, that's what we need. (However the concept of free energy would turn the world power dynamics on its head - we'd probably have a world war just because we didn't know what else to do.)
funkihamsta
If you know anyone in Cumbria (Millom area) they may tell you that Sellafield has leaks on a weekly basis, the place is mis-managed and populated by 16 year old scrotes paid to get their life times radiation dose in 6 months. Its a mess. Burying waster just irradiates the surrounding rock so that becomes radioactive as well. (Its like wrapping a turd in paper and expecting the paper to be fine). If there is any through flow of water this nuclear waste can rapidly find its way into the water table...then you'd have a reason to move abroad!!
Fusion, that's what we need. (However the concept of free energy would turn the world power dynamics on its head - we'd probably have a world war just because we didn't know what else to do.)
funkihamsta
Have to agree Funki. How about the news in the last few days that a nuclear power station - in the USA I think - was leaking some kind of acid which had eaten almost completely through (14cm out of 15!!) the wall of the vessel containing cooling liquid - they only spotted it because it started to bulge on the outside. 
!
The news said that if it had burst there could have been a catastrophic melt down. I suspect (hope!) that there would have been other emergency control measures to put into place, but even so - Fuke.
Put that kind of technology into enough piss-poor countries that will have major incentives to economise on expensive safety procedures - no thanks.
>> Edited by JohnL on Wednesday 12th June 10:39
! The news said that if it had burst there could have been a catastrophic melt down. I suspect (hope!) that there would have been other emergency control measures to put into place, but even so - Fuke.
Put that kind of technology into enough piss-poor countries that will have major incentives to economise on expensive safety procedures - no thanks.
>> Edited by JohnL on Wednesday 12th June 10:39
quote:
No body ever seems to say anything about aircraft pollution.
It's all about burning fossil fuels and releasing - primarily - CO2.
quote:
Living under the flight path at Heathrow
Sooner you than me pal ... I'll wave on my way in tomorrow a.m. (flight leaves at 06:30 so up at 04:45
) quote:
A bit like the argument against fox hunting really.
Most people probably dont even think about foxes being killed until they are prompted into the debate by seeing some upper class twit of the year ...
May have a bit to do with it - but on the other hand badger baiting - the same kind of entertainment but for the plebs - was banned ages ago.
quote:
I dont think its the fact they are killing foxes that sticks in peoples throats
no it's the deliberate cruelty.
quote:
Just be mindfull that when the anti hunting lobby have succeeded then they may well start on the motorist as the next evil creation that is destroying the countrys' wildlife.
I laughed when I read this - but I fear you may be right
. quote:
A bit like the arguement against fox hunting really.
Most people probably dont even think about foxes being killed until they are prompted into the debate by seeing some upper class twit of the year in a red jacket , jodphers and a riding crop (I dont usually pigeon hole people and nor am I anti- hunting, I just dont take part in it.)
I dont think its the fact they are killing foxes that sticks in peoples throats (although the method is not particularly efficient) Its the fact that many that ride and follow on horses are from the upper gene pools and therefore subject of the same kind of social jealousy.
And there's social jealousy in action...... a prime example. Get the facts right please - the vast majority of hunters (and I'm NOT one) are middle or working class. Just because they can afford a horse doesn't make them upper class...... (especially not in our "classless society"
) quote:
More foxes are killed on the roads than are ever killed by hounds.
A good reason to keep cars on the roads....
quote:
Just be mindfull that when the anti hunting lobby have succeeded then they may well start on the motorist as the next evil creation that is destroying the countrys' wildlife.
Be warned - its not cars that are next but fishing... sad but true. The real agenda of a lot of these single issue groups is to restrict others enjoyment based on a warped sentimentality about animals rights. If Disney had kept his cartoons as people and not animals, this would not be happening. By giving cartoon animals feelings and expressions, these get transferred to other, real-life animals and then you get the situation we have today.
I'd forgo my company car if there was a reliable bus service that operated 24 hours per day along the M4 and was able to take me from my house to my customer's site at 3 am in order to be on site within the response time he expects.
According to the taxman - my car's a perk!
(Slightly off the enviro theme here - but I thought I'd chuck this one in!)
According to the taxman - my car's a perk!
(Slightly off the enviro theme here - but I thought I'd chuck this one in!)
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff